Talk:2017 Norwegian First Division

Latest comment: 5 years ago by RMCD bot in topic Move discussion in progress

Tromsdslen -> Tromsdalen in league table

edit

Tromsdslen -> Tromsdalen in league table

  Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 5 December 2018

edit
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Centralize It is clear that the naming of these titles depends solely on naming of the main article; this discussion has been split too much, and will be centralized at Talk:Norwegian First Division#Requested move 27 November 2018. I'll ping all the participants here there in a moment. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)Reply


– See consensus at the 1. divisjon talk page. Norwegian First Division has never been and will never become the name of this league. Due to consistecy in naming of the world's football leagues this site should be named XXXX 1. divisjon (X'es represents the season year). Since 1991, 1. divisjon has been the only correct name for this second tier apart from the sponsor-affiliated names (Adeccoligaen 2005–2013, OBOS-ligaen 2015–) The reason for my view is that this anglification or Englishing of 1. divisjon does not look good and examples of better naming are many; In Germany, 2. Bundesliga is not called "German Second Division", 1. delid on the Faroe Islands is not named "First Division" and Ligue 2 in France is not named "League Two". The new naming also secure consistensy with the lower divisions in Norwegian football; 2. divisjon and 3. divisjon. Reitimwinkl (talk) 09:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 10:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • Considering the consensus on the parent article is that you shouldn't have created a new RM, these article moves should be uncontroversial as they're just maintaining consistency and supporting the consensus there. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
    • And this is exactly why the error there needs to be corrected sooner rather than later, which is why I opened a new RM. The closer of that RM refused to revert his close to allow that discussion to continue. The effects are spreading. Sooner or later it will be fixed. The sooner, the less work and pain; the sooner the better. --В²C 17:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

edit

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Norwegian First Division which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)Reply